RE: DNS & multiple names and copy statements

[Martin, Jason H]

LVS (to my knowledge) requires that the Directors all be on the same
subnet, so it wouldn't help with having clients use the 'nearest' master
server.  If the prolem was just load balancing on the servers then yes,
it would work.

After thinking about it a bit more, it would probably be much easier to
implement a module that takes as input a list of servers and outputs a
variable with the best available, which would then be used in the copy
statements.

-Jason Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> help-cfengine-bounces+jason.h.martin=cingular.com@gnu.org 
> [mailto:help-cfengine-bounces+jason.h.martin=cingular.com@gnu.
> org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Mates
> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 5:50 PM
> To: help-cfengine@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: DNS & multiple names and copy statements
> 
> 
> * Martin, Jason H <jason.h.martin@cingular.com>
> > I realize one can do this now in a basic form by determining the 
> > server value based on the current subnet, but this limits 
> one to only 
> > a 2-way failover. Something more flexible would be handy.
> 
> Why not place a pool of cfengine servers behind a load 
> balancer, such as LVS? You would need key trust duplication 
> for ppkeys to work, and replication of your staging areas 
> between the pool members, but it would save reimplementing 
> load balancing in cfengine:
> 
http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/


_______________________________________________
Help-cfengine mailing list
Help-cfengine@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-cfengine